Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750732AbWC1PGe (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:06:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750780AbWC1PGe (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:06:34 -0500 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:39322 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750732AbWC1PGe (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:06:34 -0500 To: Bill Davidsen Cc: Kirill Korotaev , Dave Hansen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, herbert@13thfloor.at, devel@openvz.org, serue@us.ibm.com, akpm@osdl.org, sam@vilain.net, Alexey Kuznetsov , Pavel Emelianov , Stanislav Protassov Subject: Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps References: <44242A3F.1010307@sw.ru> <44242D4D.40702@yahoo.com.au> <1143228339.19152.91.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4428BB5C.3060803@tmr.com> <4428FB2B.8070805@sw.ru> <44294B33.3040507@tmr.com> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:03:34 -0700 In-Reply-To: <44294B33.3040507@tmr.com> (Bill Davidsen's message of "Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:41:55 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1886 Lines: 39 Bill Davidsen writes: > Kirill Korotaev wrote: > >>> Frankly I don't see running 100 VMs as a realistic goal, being able to run >>> Linux, Windows, Solaris and BEOS unmodified in 4-5 VMs would be far more >>> useful. >> >> It is more than realistic. Hosting companies run more than 100 VPSs in >> reality. There are also other usefull scenarios. For example, I know the >> universities which run VPS for every faculty web site, for every department, >> mail server and so on. Why do you think they want to run only 5VMs on one >> machine? Much more! > > I made no commont on what "they" might want, I want to make the rack of > underutilized Windows, BSD and Solaris servers go away. An approach which > doesn't support unmodified guest installs doesn't solve any of my current > problems. I didn't say it was in any way not useful, just not of interest to > me. What needs I have for Linux environments are answered by jails and/or UML. So from one perspective that is what we are building. A full featured jail capable of running an unmodified linux distro. The cost is simply making a way to use the same names twice for the global namespaces. UML may use these features to accelerate it's own processes. Virtualization is really the wrong word to describe what we are building. As it allows for all kinds of heavy weight implementations, and has an associate with much heavier things. At the extreme end where you only have one process in each logical instance of the kernel, a better name would be a heavy weight process. Where each such process sees an environment as if it owned the entire machine. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/